Kira Herdman

Less than a year after the U.K. banned puberty blockers for trans youth, health secretary Wes Streeting, the Health Minister for this very un-Labour-like Labour government, is considering banning the prescription of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) by private clinics and healthcare providers to patients under 18.

According to the BBC, government lawyers have stated that an expert panel will issue a report on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in July. Currently, the NHS allows HRT to be prescribed to patients aged 16 and older. However, this ban would specifically target private HRT prescriptions outside of the NHS.

This news comes just a day after the UK’s high court rejected a judicial review request from anti-trans “detransitioner” Keira Bell and two anonymous parents. A judicial review is a process where a court judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body. Bell and the others argued that since Streeting chose to ban puberty blockers for trans youth, he should also ban non-NHS entities, such as private health clinics and overseas providers, from providing hormone replacement therapy to them.

During an interview with Pink News on May 23, Dr. Aidan Kelly, a consultant clinical psychologist and director of Gender Plus Hormone Clinic, expressed concern about the potential impact of the UK expanding its trans healthcare ban. He warned that this could lead to a “lost generation” of transgender individuals. Dr. Kelly also highlighted that neither the NHS nor the government had reached out to Gender Plus or any other private trans healthcare provider within the British Association for Gender Identity Specialists (BAGIS) regarding the planned July “expert report.”

“It’s worrying that there’s no knowledge within the different non-government organisations that exist to support trans young people,” he said. “It begs the question, well, have they even been consulted or involved in the process at all?”

The BBC reports that a Department for Health and Social Care spokesperson said that youth healthcare “must always be led by evidence.”

“That is why this government is implementing the recommendations from the Cass Review and acted immediately to extend the puberty blockers ban and make it permanent,” the spokesperson added.

Published last year, the highly controversial Cass Review is a UK analysis of research into gender-affirming care led by Dr. Hilary Cass, a paediatrician with no prior experience in trans medicine. The Review argued that the evidence supporting gender-affirming care was “shaky” and suggested that instead of receiving medication like puberty blockers or HRT, trans youth should undergo “exploratory” therapy. This therapy, often used as a euphemism for trans “conversion therapy,” aims to “alleviate their distress.”

While the UK government cited the Review in its decision to ban puberty blockers for trans youth, a peer-reviewed analysis published in May found that the report contains “methodological flaws and unsupported claims.”

Given these flaws and the Cass report’s limited understanding of transgender identities and experiences, the peer reviewers emphasised the need to question the integrity and validity of the Review’s recommendations. They also highlighted the importance of evidence-based medicine in future gender-affirming care research, which should involve transgender communities and prioritise patient-centred outcomes.

A recent study by the University of Utah, which is over 1,000 pages and is dated 6 August 2024, found that “the consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in paediatric GD [gender dysphoria] patients.”, slamming the CASS report findings.

Speaking to the BBC, Kelly said that there is no basis for an expanded healthcare ban aimed at trans youth.

“The decision to treat is always a sensitive and complex one,” he said. “So it should remain one that is made between the young person, their family, and their clinical team. There is no basis for the government to be involved in that decision.”

Yet again, this government is going after a small minority with no scientifically based evidence to back up life-changing decisions that should only be between the child, their GP, and their parents.